Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 13
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CPC PATENT TECHNOLOGIES PTY LTD.,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00165-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S ANSWER
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) by and through its attorneys files its Answer to the
`
`Complaint for Patent Infringement (Dkt. No. 1) filed by Plaintiff CPC Patent Technologies Pty
`
`Ltd. (“CPC”). Apple denies the allegations and characterizations in CPC’s Complaint unless
`
`expressly admitted in the following numbered paragraphs, which correspond to the numbered
`
`paragraphs in the Complaint:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Apple admits that this is an action for purported patent infringement arising under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,269,208 (“the ’208 Patent”) and 9,665,705 (“the ’705
`
`Patent”) and 8,620,039 (“the ’039 Patent),” collectively “the Patents-in-Suit.” To the extent
`
`Paragraph 1 of the Complaint calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. Apple denies
`
`that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the Patents-in-Suit, directly or indirectly, literally or
`
`under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Except as specifically admitted and to the extent that a response
`
`is required, Apple denies the allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 1.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 13
`
`2.
`
`Apple admits that CPC accuses Apple iPhones and iPads equipped with Touch or
`
`Face ID of infringing the ’208 Patent and the ’705 Patent and accuses Apple iPhones and iPads
`
`with an Apple Card loaded in the Apple Wallet app of infringing the ’039 Patent, collectively “the
`
`Accused Products.” Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit, directly or indirectly, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Except as specifically
`
`admitted and to the extent that a response is required, Apple denies the allegations and
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 2.
`
`THE PARTIES1
`
`3.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 3 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response is required. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`4.
`
`To the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 4 set forth legal conclusions, no
`
`response if required. Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
`
`truth of the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`5.
`
`Apple admits that it is a California corporation having a place of business at One
`
`Apple Park Way in Cupertino, California 95014 and a place of business at 12535 Riata Vista Circle
`
`in Austin, Texas and 5501 West Parmer Lane in Austin, Texas.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Apple admits that it employs over one thousand people in Austin, Texas.
`
`Apple admits that it is building a facility in Austin, Texas, but otherwise denies the
`
`characterizations contained in Paragraph 7.
`
`
`1 Apple repeats the headings set forth in the Complaint to simplify comparison of the Complaint
`and this response. In doing so, Apple makes no admissions regarding the substance of the headings
`or any other allegations of the Complaint. Unless otherwise stated, to the extent that a particular
`heading can be construed as an allegation, Apple specifically denies all such allegations.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 13
`
`8.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 8 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that it has retail establishments in Austin,
`
`Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Apple admits that it can be served with process through its registered agent CT
`
`Corporation System at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`10.
`
`Apple admits that this is a purported action for patent infringement arising under
`
`the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the United States Code. Apple further admits that
`
`this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over actions for alleged patent infringement pursuant to
`
`28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`11.
`
`Apple does not contest whether specific personal jurisdiction properly lies over
`
`Apple by this Court, solely for purposes of this action. Apple denies that it infringes or has
`
`infringed any claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under the Doctrine
`
`of Equivalents. Apple denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in
`
`Paragraph 11.
`
`12.
`
`Apple does not contest whether general personal jurisdiction properly lies over
`
`Apple by this Court, solely for purposes of this action. Apple denies that it infringes or has
`
`infringed any claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under the Doctrine
`
`of Equivalents. Apple denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in
`
`Paragraph 12.
`
`13.
`
`CPC’s venue allegations call for a legal conclusion and therefore no answer is
`
`required. For at least the reasons stated in Apple’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 22), Apple
`
`denies that venue in this District is convenient or in the interest of justice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 13
`
`1404(a). Apple admits that it has a place of business in this District. Apple admits that Apple’s
`
`products are used, offered for sale, and sold in this District. Apple denies that it infringes or has
`
`infringed any claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under the Doctrine
`
`of Equivalents. Apple denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in
`
`Paragraph 13.
`
`SECURICOM’S [ALLEGED] INNOVATION OF BIOMETRIC SECURITY
`TECHNOLOGY
`
`14.
`
`Denied.
`
`15.
`
`Denied.
`
`16.
`
`Denied.
`
`APPLE’S [ALLEGED] FORAY INTO THE BIOMETRIC SECURITY TECHNOLOGY
`
`17.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 17 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that it introduced Apple Touch ID in 2013 and
`
`Apple Face ID in 2017. Apple denies that it infringes or has infringed any claim of the Asserted
`
`Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Apple also denies, as
`
`explained in its September 29, 2020 Preliminary Invalidity Contentions, that the ’208 Patent and
`
`’705 Patent are entitled the alleged priority date CPC asserts. Apple denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 17.
`
`18.
`
`Apple admits that it introduced the Apple Card in 2019. Apple denies that it
`
`infringes or has infringed any claim of the Asserted Patents, directly or indirectly, literally or under
`
`the Doctrine of Equivalents. Apple denies the remaining allegations and characterizations
`
`contained in Paragraph 18.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 5 of 13
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`19.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 19 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that CPC purports to attach a true and accurate
`
`copy of the ’039 Patent, entitled “Card Device Security using Biometrics,” as Exhibit A to its
`
`Complaint and that the first page of the ’039 Patent displays December 31, 2013. Apple denies
`
`the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 19.
`
`20.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 20 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that CPC purports to attach a true and accurate
`
`copy of the ’208 Patent, entitled “Remote Entry System,” as Exhibit B to its Complaint and that
`
`the first page of the ’208 Patent displays February 23, 2016. Apple denies the remaining
`
`allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 20.
`
`21.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 21 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that CPC purports to attach a true and accurate
`
`copy of the ’705 Patent, entitled “Remote Entry System,” as Exhibit C to its Complaint and that
`
`the first page of the ’705 Patent displays May 30, 2017. Apple denies the remaining allegations
`
`and characterizations contained in Paragraph 21.
`
`APPLE’S [ALLEGED] KNOWLEDGE OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`22.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 22 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that CPC purports to attach correspondence
`
`from CPC to an Apple employee dated March 19, 2020 as Exhibit D to its Complaint. Apple
`
`denies the correspondence CPC purports to attach as Exhibit D constitutes specific notice of
`
`infringement regarding the ’705 Patent or the ’039 Patent. Apple denies the remaining allegations
`
`and characterizations contained in Paragraph 22.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 6 of 13
`
`23.
`
`To the extent Paragraph 23 calls for a legal conclusion, no response is required. To
`
`the extent that a response is required, Apple admits that CPC purports to attach correspondence
`
`from counsel for Apple to CPC dated May 14, 2020 as Exhibit E to its Complaint. Apple denies
`
`the correspondence CPC purports to attach as Exhibit E shows Apple’s awareness of the ’208
`
`Patent. Apple denies the remaining allegations and characterizations contained in Paragraph 23.
`
`24.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`([Alleged] Infringement of the ’208 Patent)
`
`25.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-24 as set forth fully
`
`herein. Paragraph 25 does not contain allegations for Apple to either admit or deny.
`
`26.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`27.
`
`Denied.
`
`28.
`
`Denied.
`
`29.
`
`Denied.
`
`30.
`
`As explained in its May 6, 2020 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23), Apple denies
`
`that CPC has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`([Alleged] Infringement of the ’705 Patent)
`
`31.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-30 as set forth fully
`
`herein. Paragraph 31 does not contain allegations for Apple to either admit or deny.
`
`32.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 7 of 13
`
`33.
`
`Denied.
`
`34.
`
`Denied.
`
`35.
`
`Denied.
`
`36.
`
`As explained in its May 6, 2020 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23), Apple denies
`
`that CPC has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`([Alleged] Infringement of the ’039 Patent)
`
`37.
`
`Apple incorporates by reference its responses to Paragraphs 1-36 as set forth fully
`
`herein. Paragraph 37 does not contain allegations for Apple to either admit or deny.
`
`38.
`
`Apple lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
`
`the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, and therefore denies them.
`
`39.
`
`Denied.
`
`40.
`
`Denied.
`
`41.
`
`Denied.
`
`42.
`
`As explained in its May 6, 2020 Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23), Apple denies
`
`that CPC has complied with 35 U.S.C. § 287.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`This paragraph sets forth Plaintiff’s demand for jury trial to which no response is required.
`
`CPC’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`This section of the Complaint sets forth CPC’s requested relief to which no response is
`
`required. Apple denies that CPC is entitled to any relief sought in its Prayer for Relief or otherwise.
`
`GENERAL DENIAL
`
`To the extent that any allegations of the Complaint have not been previously specifically
`
`admitted or denied, Apple denies them.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 8 of 13
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c), Apple, without waiver, limitation, or
`
`prejudice, hereby asserts the following affirmative defenses:
`
`FIRST DEFENSE
`
`(Failure to State a Claim)
`
`1.
`
`CPC’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, as set
`
`forth in Apple’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 23).
`
`SECOND DEFENSE
`
`(Standing)
`
`2.
`
`CPC’s claims are barred in whole or in part because CPC lacks standing to bring
`
`this action because it did not have sufficient rights to the Patents-in-Suit at the time the suit was
`
`filed, as set forth in Apple’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 45).
`
`THIRD DEFENSE
`
`(Non-Infringement)
`
`3.
`
`CPC’s claims are barred in whole or in part because Apple has not directly
`
`infringed, induced infringement, or contributed to infringement, and does not directly infringe,
`
`induce infringement, or contribute to infringement, of any valid and enforceable claim of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit, either literally or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, and has not otherwise
`
`committed any acts in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`FOURTH DEFENSE
`
`(Invalidity)
`
`4.
`
`CPC’s claims are barred in whole or in part because each asserted claim of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit is invalid for failure to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102,
`
`103, 112, and/or any other applicable statutory provisions of Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 9 of 13
`
`FIFTH DEFENSE
`
`(Prosecution History Estoppel)
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`CPC’s claims are barred in whole or in part by reason of estoppel.
`
`CPC is estopped from construing any valid claim of the Patents-in-Suit to be
`
`infringed or to have been infringed, either literally or by application of the Doctrine of Equivalents,
`
`by any product made, used, imported, sold, or offered for sale by Apple in view of prior art and/or
`
`because of admissions, representations, and/or statements made to the Patent Office during
`
`prosecution of any application leading to the issuance of the Asserted Patents or any related patent,
`
`because of disclosures or language in the specifications of the Asserted Patents, and/or because of
`
`limitations in the claims of the Asserted Patents.
`
`SIXTH DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Damages)
`
`7.
`
`To the extent that CPC and/or any predecessors in interest or any licensees to the
`
`Patents-in-Suit failed to properly mark any of their relevant products or materials as required by
`
`35 U.S.C. § 287, or otherwise failed to give proper notice that Apple’s actions allegedly infringe
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, Apple is not liable to CPC for the acts alleged to have been performed before
`
`Apple received actual notice that the Accused Products were allegedly infringing the Patents-in-
`
`Suit.
`
`SEVENTH DEFENSE
`
`(Unclean Hands/Equitable Estoppel/Acquiescence/Waiver)
`
`8.
`
`CPC’s attempted enforcement of the Patents-in-Suit against Apple is barred by
`
`unclean hands, equitable estoppel, acquiescence, and/or waiver.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 10 of 13
`
`EIGHTH DEFENSE
`
`(Adequate Remedy Other Than Injunctive Relief)
`
`9.
`
`CPC is not entitled to injunctive relief, as, at a minimum, it has no irreparable
`
`injury, it has an adequate remedy at law for any alleged infringement by Apple, the balance of
`
`hardships do not tip in its favor, and the public interest would be disserved by an injunction.
`
`NINTH DEFENSE
`
`(Limitation on Remedies)
`
`10.
`
`CPC’s remedies are limited under 28 U.S.C. § 1498(a). Apple is not liable to the
`
`extent the Accused Products were used or manufactured by or for the United States, or to the extent
`
`accused activities were undertaken on behalf of the United States, according to at least U.S.C. §
`
`1498.
`
`TENTH DEFENSE
`
`(No Willfulness)
`
`11.
`
`Apple has not and does not willfully infringe any claim of the Asserted Patents.
`
`RESERVATION OF ALL ADDITIONAL DEFENSES
`
`Apple hereby gives notice that it intends to rely upon any other matter constituting an
`
`avoidance or affirmative defense as set forth in Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`and that it reserves the right to seek leave to amend this Answer to add to, amend, withdraw, or
`
`modify these defenses as its investigation continue and as discovery may require.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 11 of 13
`
`Date: January 28, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Tony Nguyen
`Seth M. Sproul (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`CA Bar No. 217711
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`12860 El Camino Real, Suite 400
`San Diego, CA 92130
`Telephone: (858) 678-5070
`Facsimile: (858) 678-5099
`sproul@fr.com
`
`Benjamin C. Elacqua
`TX Bar No. 24055443
`Tony Nguyen
`TX Bar No. 24083565
`Kathryn Quisenberry
`TX Bar No. 24105639
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
`Houston, TX 90067
`Telephone: (713) 654-5300
`Facsimile: (713) 652-0109
`elacqua@fr.com
`nguyen@fr.com
`quisenberry@fr.com
`
`Joy B. Kete (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`MA Bar No. 694323
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`One Marina Park
`Boston, MA 02210
`Telephone: (617) 542-5070
`Facsimile: (617) 542-8906
`kete@fr.com
`
`Betty H. Chen
`TX Bar No. 24056720
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello St.
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`Facsimile: (650) 839-5071
`bchen@fr.com
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 12 of 13
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`TX Bar No. 16584975
`Kelly Ransom
`TX Bar No. 24109427
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 495-6429
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`kelly.ransom@kellyhart.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00165-ADA Document 67 Filed 01/28/22 Page 13 of 13
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 28, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
`
`Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the
`
`following:
`
`George C. Summerfield
`James A. Shimota
`K&L Gates LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3300
`Chicago, IL 60602
`DK.Kim@klgates.com
`Summerfield@stadheimgrear.com
`Jim.Shimota@klgates.com
`
`Elizabeth Abbott Gilman
`K & L Gates LLP
`1000 Main, Suite 2550
`Houston, TX 77002
`Beth.Gilman@klgates.com
`
`
`Stewart Mesher
`K & L Gates LLP
`2801 Via Fortuna, Suite 350
`Austin, TX 77002
`stewart.mesher@klgates.com
`Attorneys for
`CPC Patent Technologies Pty Ltd.
`
`
`/s/ Tony Nguyen
`Tony Nguyen
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`